Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarketResearch.com


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD by  Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  13:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MarketResearch.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deleted by prod and restored through Requests_for_undeletion, with the clear WP:COI IP's comment "MarketResearch.com is a very credible, mid-sized provider of research services. We have been in business since the late 1990's and are leader in our market. We devote time and effort to maintaining our Wikipedia page to inform and educate people about the company. We have had a Wiki page since 2009 and have always taken time to make sure the article is informational and not advertising. If you allow other companies to inform the world about their business it is discriminatory to single ours out for deletion." I believe the rationale of the prod, which was copied to the author's talk page during the prod stage, was clear enough. Also, the IP's comment uses the invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (if IP is worried that we keep their competitor's pages, please do list them here and we will review and hopefully purge much of that spam as well). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources don't demonstrate that the company meets WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. The sources given are directory listings, press releases, or primary sources, nothing providing significant coverage. The article is actively maintained by the company itself and they seem to be incapable of refraining from using it as a publicity medium. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. It's clear the company is using it to steer public perception of their company. clpo13(talk) 06:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is a promotional piece based on content.  Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.